Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Trump to North Korea: 'Your weapons are not making you safer' - BBC News" video.

  1. In percentage of GDP it doesn't.
    7
  2. No it didn't. Because, at least in the context of Libya and Syria, their dictators turned on their own people anyhow.
    4
  3. agitbeats Gaddafi was fighting his own people. Same as Assad. They're tyrants. They rule by fear, its what they do. And both the Gaddafi and Assad regimes have a long history of supporting Islamist (and non-Islamist) terrorism. What's wrong? Did you not think we'd notice their piss-poor attempted at making out like they were the front line against world terrorism? Lol.
    3
  4. agitbeats I think we all know that Russian second world war history is different to everyone else's. It has to be. Otherwise Russia comes across as no better than Nazi Germany. Which is true. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact divided Poland between Russia and Nazi Germany. That is a historical fact. Stalin and Hitler agreed in advance which part of Poland would be Russian, and which parts German. The Polish border forces in the east put up a defence against the Russian invasion. But as most of the Polish army were fighting in the west against the Germans, it was a case of little more than 20,000 Polish fighting a Russian invasion force made up of 7 armies (anything over half a million men). The day after the Soviet invasion started, the Polish government crossed into Romania.  By Russia's own accounts, they suffered 737 deaths and 1,862 casualties during the joint invasion of Poland. On the Polish side, 3,000–7,000 soldiers died fighting the Red Army, with 230,000–450,000 taken prisoner. That last figure is important, because if this was not a Russian invasion, why did the Russians take prisoners of war? And as we know, the Russians killed tens of thousands of Polish prisoners of war. On 24 September, the Soviets killed 42 staff and patients of a Polish military hospital in the village of Grabowiec, near Zamosc. The Russians also executed all the Polish officers they captured after the Battle of Szack, on 28 September 1939. And, of course, over 20,000 Polish military personnel and civilians were murdered by the Russians in the Katyn massacre. In fact, so brutal and savage were the Russian NKVD, that even the Gestapo were shocked. And many Polish, including Jews, fled into German occupied Poland to escape the Russians. During the two years following the annexation, the Russians arrested approximately 100,000 Polish citizens. And the number of Polish deported to Siberia amounted to (Russia's own figures) anything from 320,000 to 1 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_prisoner_massacres By the way, Russia wasn't expelled from the League of Nations over its invasion of Poland, because it wasn't a member. It had already been expelled from the League due to its invasion of Finland. And while it is true that the Polish Government did not declare war on the invading Russians (how could they, as the Polish government ceased to exist a day after the Russian invasion?), the Russians didn't declare war on Poland either. Yet they still invaded Poland.
    3
  5. Britain and France didn't annex half of Czechoslovakia though, did they? They attempted to avoid war. While Russia allied with the nazis and annexed half of Poland. A large part of Finland. And the Baltics. And yes, you are correct. Russia didn't go to war against the tyrant Saddam Hussein. It didn't support getting rid of the tyrant Gaddafi. And it doesn't support getting rid of the mass murdering tyrant Assad. Instead, it supports the mass murdering tyrant Assad. And illegally invades and annexes territory from its democratic neighbours Georgia and Ukraine. In fact, Russia has always been an enemy of democracy. Which is why Russia doesn't have one single democratic ally in the whole of the western world. Instead, its forced to hang out with Iran, Assad, North Korea, and, when Beijing cares to notice it, China. You'd think Russians of all people would learn from history. But apparently not.
    3
  6. Lol. Incredible the amount of hatred Russians have for Ukrainians! One more former ally on the ever growing list of enemies of the Russian motherland. Leaving Russia out in the cold. Again. No difference between Russian nationalism and the nazis they accuse everyone else of being. Fascists, drug lords, and terrorists, perfectly sums up Putin's Russia.
    3
  7. The US is in South Korea because the South Koreans want them there.
    2
  8. A non-aggression pact? You really need to learn your history. It was a coordinated alliance between Nazi Germany and Russia against Poland. Only Russia continues the lie that it was anything else. The Germans/Russians even held a joint military parade to celebrate their victory! https://youtu.be/J0-a3JgB_Q8
    2
  9. Any country would've allied with Nazi Germany to divide Poland up between them? I don't think so. Only Russia still clings to the Stalinist lie that Russia's invasion of Poland was anything but an invasion of Poland. Russia did the same with Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.
    2
  10. Again, you are simply repeating old soviet propaganda designed to avoid the truth of Russia's war guilt. Russia didn't need to invade Poland to defend itself against Germany. That's just ridiculous. The US didn't supply Iraqi with chemical weapons. In fact, as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute study shows, the Soviet Union and her satellites were the main suppliers of arms to Iraq. It's the reason why Saddam's forces drove T72 tanks, flew Mig aircraft, and fired off Russian made Scud missiles into Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRI_Arms_Transfers_Database,_Iraq_1973%E2%80%931990 The Gaddafi regime had appalling human rights. And to be honest, plenty of countries have a higher standard of living than Russia. Including, now that they are free from Russian influence, much of eastern Europe. And many people attempted to convince Gaddafi to step down. But he ignored them and war followed. Luckily, unlike in Syria (where Russia still props up its puppet Assad), Libya missed out on six years of all out war. And let me guess, Russia never invaded Ukraine and Georgia, just like it never invaded Poland, right?
    2
  11. If Assad has so much support, how come he has to rely on his puppet master in Moscow to prop him up? And the Iranians? And Hezbollah? ...You'd be hard pressed to find a more unholy alliance! Lol!
    2
  12. Guaranteed he's retarded in some way.
    2
  13. Absolutely. Whilst at the same time parroting the propaganda of some of the worst regimes in recent history.
    2
  14. agitbeats Are you one of those servile little runts that like to lick the boots of tyrants and dictators?
    2
  15. You mean like Assad, Putin, and Gaddafi? Let's remember Gaddafi financed terrorism against the UK. Assad uses chemical weapons against civilians. And when Putin isn't invading and annexing territory from his neighbours, he's going to war to prop up his puppet tyrants!
    2
  16. It must be remembered that it wasn't South Korea or the US that started the Korean war. That would be down to the North Korean regime put in place by Stalin. The war was itself instigated by Stalin. And remember, South Korea is a successful democracy. Whereas North Korea is a third-world communist shithole. So clearly, it would have been in the interests of the unfortunate North Koreans for the Americans and their UN allies to have won the war the North Korean leadership started, and to have driven the Chinese out of Korea completely. Sadly for North Koreans, that did not happen. The North Korean's have never been interested in normalising relations with the US or South Korea. To do so would fatally undermine the North Korean regime. As the threat of US invasion is vital to the regime's hold on power. While in reality 30,000 US troops based in the South are no threat at all. Funnily enough, the biggest threat to the North Korean regime comes not for the US, but from China. Pyongyang fears regime change from Beijing far more than from Washington. And if there is a coup in Pyongyang, it will be down to the Chinese. And they will have to act, if the Kim regime becomes too much of a liability. Korea is unfortunate in that it has China as a neighbour. The North Korean regime exists because it is not in the interests of the Chinese and Russians to have a unified and democratic Korea. The Chinese regime has little interests in the rights and freedoms of its own people, so is unlikely to care too much for the rights and freedoms of the Korean people. North Korea wants nuclear weapons because the survival of the regime depends on it. They themselves withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty they had signed up to. Because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) required North Korea to allow inspections of its nuclear research facilities. As the US was paying North Korea in aid as part of that agreement, the North Korean regime was breaking the terms of the agreement. Not the US. In other words, it was the North Korean regime that refused to KEEP IT'S PROMISES.
    2
  17. Nonofya Bidnez What independent international observers are you referring to? Not the International Atomic Energy Agency. Because, as part of the deal North Korea signed up to, they were supposed to be allowed to verify the North Korean regimes claims that it was sticking to the agreement. But North Korea refused to allow them. So when North Korea broke the agreement, the US stopped paying. You don't pay your electricity bills when you're not getting any electricity! (Or more correctly, you don't pay blackmail money for nothing). ''...Yeah and the US wasn't a threat to all the other countries it started bombing or invading illegally'' North Korea's nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s. They broke the nuclear non-proliferation treaty way back in 1993. A full ten years before the western coalition's invasion of Iraq. Eighteen years before the west intervened to prevent Gaddafi's promised bloodbath against the people of Benghazi. And Eighteen years before Assad began his war against the Syrian people. And North Korea not only constantly holds its own military exercises near the border with the South, but shells South Korean territory, kidnaps its citizens (and Japans), fires missiles over Japan (essentially an act of war), and sinks South Korean ships. But the South Koreans don't question the right of North Korea to hold military exercises. Whereas, North Korea seems to believe it can dictate South Korean defence policy.
    2
  18. Nonofya Bidnez As I have already pointed out, North Korea broke the nuclear non-proliferation treaty it signed in 1993. It effectively wanted money in exchange for not developing nuclear weapons. But wasn't willing to abide by the treaty it signed up to by allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its nuclear facilities. Why did you then suddenly jump forward to 1998 to a completely different agreement in an attempt to justify your claims that 'all independent international observers' said that North Korea was holding to its treaty obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? The treaty you are now focusing on (in a desperate attempt to legitimise your previous claim) is the 1994 Agreed Framework. Under this agreement, the US agreed to supply oil and build two light water reactors in North Korea in exchange for North Korean disarmament. This agreement eventually collapsed when it was discovered that North Korea had, in violation of the agreement, developed an undisclosed uranium-enrichment program (with the aid of Pakistan). The agreement ended in 2002. And barely three years later, North Korea admitted that it had nuclear weapons. Go figure. The problem isn't the US. The problem is the North Korean regime. It's a problem because it continually threatens it neighbours. And refuses to abide by the agreements it signs. But most of all, its a problem for North Koreans. Because they are the ones who are forced to live under its rule.
    2
  19. The answer is for Japan and South Korea to begin developing nuclear weapons of their own. You would then see the Chinese and Russians suddenly more interested in nuclear non-proliferation.
    2
  20. Lol. So what are you saying? That the US should have the same defence budget as Luxembourg? How about China and Russia? Or is it just the west that should disarm?
    1
  21. Lol. North Korea could clearly do with the Rothschilds then. As every country that apparently isn't part of the Rothschild empire is invariably a third-world shithole!
    1
  22. It is a fact that the Gaddafi and Syrian regimes turned on their own people. They were and are dictatorships after all. They rule by fear. It's one of the reasons why Russia supports them. Because Russia has always been an enemy of freedom and a friend to genocidal tyrants.
    1
  23. agitbeats. But Gaddafi was a terrorist. He was up to his neck in terrorism. You do know that, right? And the Assad regime also funded and supported terrorism (as well as torturing to death thousands of Syrians). Why are you propagating conspiracy theories in support of mass murdering, terrorist supporting dictators?
    1
  24. ...Ah, I see! Your channel links to RT and 21stCenturyWireTV! (who link to Press TV -an Iranian state controlled propaganda channel). Both Russia and Iran support Assad and were more than sympathetic to Gaddafi. So you're here to shill for the kremlin and the ayatollah!
    1
  25. If it were up to me, you'd have two choices. Moscow or Tehran. One way ticket.
    1
  26. Then again, you could already actually be in either of those places. From what we know, more than likely Moscow.
    1
  27. Looking at his channel, he seems very concerned with pushing the kremlin's view of the world.
    1
  28. Lol. He's most likely a conspiracy nut. They're always the first to fall for kremlin/Iranian propaganda. It's their primary recruitment base. Although looking at his channel he seems very keen to push kremlin lies over Putin's invasion of Ukraine. So he could just be Russian. You know what they say, Russians can have an opinion on everyone else's politics. But their own.
    1
  29. Which country is that exactly, agitbeats? Poland? Lithuania? Latvia? Estonia? Because of course, all those countries were invaded by Russia, while Russia was allied to nazi Germany. In fact, unlike the western powers, Russia wasn't even in the fight against nazi Germany until they invaded the soviet union (although technically the Germans were invading Russian occupied Poland). As for Crimea and Ukraine, that unhappy place has long suffered at the hands of Russia. Sadly, Crimea now finds itself on the wrong side of the new iron curtain. But at least Ukraine can now be rid of the dead weight that is Russian influence. Leave Russians to the mercy of the KGB.
    1
  30. Libya lucky? Considering what is happening in Syria? Absolutely! Six years of all out war, chemical attacks against civilians by Assad and Putin. Could all have been avoided. But of course, Russia says Assad must stay, and is willing to fight to the last Syrian to keep him in power. I'm not interested in hearing you parrot Gaddafi propaganda. Gaddafi had been in power for forty years. It would be amazing if Libya's oil wealth hadn't improved living standards in forty years! And yes, we've all heard the old conspiracy story about Libya 'switching from the petrodollar'. Assad used the exact same conspiracy to explain away why his people took up arms against his regime. And Saddam said the same when his regime was being toppled. Can't these dictators ever think of anything more original? Your claim was the US sold Saddam chemical weapons. Now let me guess, you found that was untrue so now you've switched to 'America helped Saddam during the Iran Iraq war'? That is true. But as the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database link shows, during the Iran–Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, the Soviet Union sold or gave more military equipment and supplies to Iraq than any other country. The Soviet Union 57.8% of total arms sales to Iraq vs the USA 0.8%!
    1
  31. Well, I guess you can explain why Russia keeps blocking UN investigations into chemical weapons attacks in Syria? (And you don't need to be Polish of Ukrainian to know Russia invaded Poland and/or Ukraine. Lol)
    1
  32. Strange. Because Russia is always in the minority when it attempts to cover up Assad's chemical weapons attacks against civilians. I guess that's just yet another example of Russian history being different to everyone else's!
    1
  33. You'll have to do better than linking to some weird fake news website. Holy, shit, it couldn't even manage to tell the truth about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, so I'm doubting anything else it says is in anyway legit! I can think of a number of genocidal regimes the US, and the west, has allied with in the past. Chief among them being soviet Russia.
    1
  34. The Russians invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory because the west told them to?
    1
  35. Very true.
    1
  36. I agree. Russia and China have nukes. So Japan, South Korea, and Ukraine and the Baltics should also have nukes.
    1
  37. ''Because international observers and even America agreed that North Korea was keeping their end of the treaty they signed with America.'' Once again, the North Korean regime broke the non proliferation treaty way back in 1993 by its refusal to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify North Korean claims that it was sticking to the treaty. Who these 'international observers' you refer to are, I don't know. But are you saying that they claimed the IAEA was lying when it said North Korea was refusing entry into North Korean nuclear facilities? The 1994 Agreed Framework between the US and North Korea was signed in, not surprisingly, 1994. The continued references you make in regard to a 1998 hearing are in relation to the 1994 Agreed Framework agreement, NOT North Korea's breaking of the nuclear non proliferation treaty in 1993. ''Sure in 1993 they broke a treaty but they DID stick to the treaties that followed.'' No they didn't. As I told you, the 1994 Agreed Framework eventually collapsed when it was discovered that North Korea had, in violation of the agreement, developed an undisclosed uranium-enrichment program with the aid of Pakistan. North Korea break the treaties, because it is in their interests to do so. They can and have worked on nuclear development while blackmailing aid from other states. Sure, the US has supported brutal regimes in the past. The Soviet Union was a good example. But it did so in order to defeat what was considered to be a worse threat: Nazi Germany. Likewise, the US and the west in general supported some very brutal regimes during the cold war, against what was considered then the greater threat: The Soviet Union. If you think foreign policy will ever be anything other than hypocritical in a world filled with regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Pakistan, etc, you are very naive. But to use that as an excuse to claim that somehow the North Korean regime is being unfairly treated by the US is not just naive, but nihilistic to the point of being suicidal. If all you said was true, and the US was treating the Kim regime unfairly, I would still support the US. Because the North Korean regime is every bit as bad as they say. You might not like the idea of the Saddam regime, or the Gaddafi regime, or the Assad regime being toppled from power, but I do. And I hope one day the same will happen to the Kim regime.
    1
  38. Nonofya Bidnez Unfortunately for your argument, it was you who claimed 'This could have all been avoided by actually KEEPING YOUR PROMISES.' So now that we have seen that it was North Korea and not the US that failed to keep their promises, that is suddenly not the case? No doubt if Japan was regularly threatening nuclear obliteration against the US and its allies, as North Korea does, the US would still see Japan as an enemy. South Korea is a successful democratic state that really doesn't deserve the continued threats of the Kim regime against it. Not after that same Kim regime unleashed the horrors of the Korean war against it. The one article you are obsessing over is simply an opinion piece. It focuses on a 1998 hearing into the 1994 Agreed Framework between the US and North Korea. But the agreement didn't fall apart until 2002. Tell me, do you expect a 1998 hearing to hear evidence from four years into the future? In fact, that piece completely fails to mention that North Korea was, in its illicit uranium-enrichment program, breaking the terms of the agreement. Which is why the agreement collapsed. The hearing was in 1998. North Korea's uranium-enrichment program wasn't known about until sometime in 2007. As for the Clinton administration 'unhelpfully persisting' in labelling North Korea a rogue state (as the piece complains), that is exactly what North Korea was and is. They refuse to recognise South Korea's right to exist, or its right to self defence. Which is why, obviously, they kick up such a stink over South Korean military exercises, but see their own military exercises as a sovereign right not up for negotiation. As for your claim that ''if they [the US] had spent a few million dollars per year(20-30 I read) they could have most likely prevented North Korea from developing nuclear capabilities'', you might like to know that between 1995 and 2008 (which neatly covers the time period in question), the United States provided North Korea with over $1.3 billion in assistance: slightly more than 50% for food aid and about 40% for energy assistance. fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf
    1
  39. Correction* The US first concluded in July 2002 that North Korea had embarked on a large-scale program to produce highly enriched uranium for use in weapons. Not 2007. You will notice in the information in the link provided that the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), the US-led organization established to implement the Agreed Framework, -the one your link accuses of being in severe debt, had by that time delivered North Korea $403.70 million in aid. Over £50 million a year for eight years-somewhat more than the $20-30 million a year you claim the US could have spent in order to prevent North Korea developing nuclear weapons. And even after the agreement collapsed in 2002, US aid to North Korea continued. Amounting to just under $200 million in aid in three years for fuel aid and 'nuclear disablement'.
    1
  40. ''...In the 1998 hearing they talked about how the oil shipments were constantly late and how this was an issue. They talked about how they weren't doing anything about the 2 light water reactors that should be completed by 2003. So it was VERY clear that the US had no intent on keeping up their end'' The 1994 Agreed Framework included the construction of two light-water nuclear reactors and the provision of 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil annually while the reactors were being built. The shipments of fuel oil were to happen on an action for action basis, as North Korea made progress on denuclearization. The fuel shipments were delivered in a start-and-stop manner, slowed primarily by disagreements between Pyongyang and Washington over how and whether to verify North Korea’s nuclear disablement, and over whether the United States would remove North Korea from its State Sponsors of Terrorism list. In October 2002, KEDO board members decided to halt fuel oil shipments following a dispute over North Korea’s secret uranium enrichment program. In December, North Korea expelled inspectors from its Yongbyon nuclear site, withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), and resumed operations at Yongbyon. Clearly then, the agreement did indeed collapse because of North Korea's secret uranium enrichment program. But between 1995 and 2003, the United States had delivered over $400 million in heavy fuel oil. Hardly evidence that the US had no intention of honouring its commitments. ''...Conveniently forgetting that America has war time control over the South Korean army. What about countries that don't recognize Israel or Palestine or any other country for that matter? Are they also all rogue states?'' Why is it relevant that the US would have wartime control over the South Korean army? Are you claiming that is a legitimate reason for North Korea's continued aggression towards South Korea? Should North Korea have a say in South Korea's defence policy in the event of North Korea invading South Korea again? And surely, if North Korea wants normalised relations with South Korea and a peace treaty, wouldn't recognising South Korea's right to exist be vital in order for that to happen? After all, you can't have normal relations with a country you don't acknowledge exists, can you? "The Agreed Framework requires North Korea to accept full IAEA safeguards when “a significant portion of the LWR project is completed”—a milestone that is approximately three years away. Under those safeguards, Pyongyang must declare the existence of any nuclear facilities and allow the IAEA to inspect them." This is the reason why the 1994 Agreed Framework collapsed. Because North Korea had failed to declare the existence of its secret uranium enrichment program. As your own link details ''...North Korean First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Suk Ju admitted that Pyongyang has a uranium-enrichment program during October 3-5 meetings with a U.S. delegation'' "A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said October 25 that past U.S. actions had already invalidated the Agreed Framework, citing reactor construction delays, U.S. economic sanctions, and U.S. threats of pre-emptive attack against North Korea, according to the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA)." In other words, North Korea had been found out and in a piss poor attempt at damage control, they claimed the US had already invalidated the agreement. Only apparently North Korea hadn't told anyone that, and were of course still signed up to the agreement. And still accepting US aid in accordance with the agreement they said was invalid. ''So under the agreed upon framework NK actually only had to let IAEA inspect stuff when the light water reactors were well on their way.'' No. The agreement was that North Korea had to dismantle its nuclear facilities once the two light-water nuclear reactors were completed. Until then, North Korea had to abide by the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Which meant full discloser of all nuclear programs and access for IAEA inspection teams. But they broke the agreement they signed up to. If only they had KEPT THEIR PROMISES!
    1
  41. Nice try. But how did the US fail to meet their end of the bargain? The two reactors were not to be completed until 2003. In the meantime, the US was providing over $400 million in heavy fuel oil aid as agreed. In fact, US aid kept North Korea from starvation. But despite more than $1.3 billion in aid given by the US to North Korea, the Kim regime was never serious in any of the agreements it signed.
    1
  42. The shipments of fuel oil were to happen on an action for action basis, as North Korea made progress on denuclearization. Late shipments were due to disagreements between Pyongyang and Washington over how and whether to verify North Korea’s nuclear disablement. Pyongyang did their very best to hide their secret uranium enrichment program. But were eventually found out. As for changing hostility, that was really down to North Korea. If it threatens its neighbours, kidnaps foreign citizens, and, ultimately, uses the threat of nuclear war as a way to blackmail money from other countries, it will be treated accordingly. The Agreed Framework was never about whitewashing North Korean actions, but changing them.
    1
  43. Either nuclear non-proliferation is a thing. Or it ain't. And if it ain't, then are the Chinese and Russians willing to live with the consequences?
    1
  44. Passivism doesn't work. That's why useful idiots push for it.
    1